‘Unconstitutional’ U.S. anti-FGM law exposes hypocrisy in child protection
On January 14, 2019, Newsweek magazine published a very thoughtful article by Brian Earp, a bioethicist from Oxford University and the Hastings Center, discussing the recent Michigan court case in which a U.S. federal judge declared unconstitutional the 1996 law forbidding female genital mutilation. Given Mr. Earp’s sharp intellect and pithy, nuanced writing style, it makes compelling reading for those with an interest in the human rights challenges posed by non-therapeutic cutting of children’s genitalia.
The Michigan case has encouraged many concerned individuals to hope that a gender-neutral anti-genital-mutilation law – encompassing full and equal protection of female, male, and intersex children – might be the next step. Brian points out that, as horrifying as the result was in this federal court, it exposes the legal and ethical weaknesses of attempting to protect one gender while leaving another vulnerable.
Here are his article’s opening paragraphs. The entire Newsweek article may be found here.
When a US federal judge ruled recently that a 1996 law prohibiting “female genital mutilation” (FGM) was unconstitutional, it prompted shock and dismay across the political spectrum: how could it be unconstitutional to protect little girls from this form of violence?
I was also disturbed, but not surprised. I have followed the legal developments surrounding FGM in the US for some time and have warned that a ruling like this was bound to happen. In fact, I gave a speech only a few weeks earlier explaining why the US anti-FGM law might have to be struck down. Other Western countries could soon follow suit.